Of all the elections for the Libertarian agenda to win big, it would have been 2016. The electorate was greatly disenfranchised. The choices were as extreme as they come.

On the one hand, the Democrats had the most openly corrupt candidate in American history. On the other, a reality TV host that is on recorded television body slamming Vince McMahon.

Both individuals also had terribly competitive primaries, making them as vulnerable as one could be. The Democrat arguably had it worse, which plays into my next point.

With no defender of real Liberalism, why did the Libertarian party not get more of the vote? One has to inspect this closer. The Republican was not a Republican in usual terms, and the electorate usually attributes the title "conservative" to individuals that mimic faux-Libertarian positions on things; some would make the case that Rand Paul is a Libertarian-Republican, although not completely in that sense.

With that in play, some Republicans would have considered voting Libertarian for that reason. Democrats would have strongly considered voting our way, with the Democrat having some hardcore stances on foreign war, resembling more of a Republican.

The voters were greatly disenchanted, and only, if only, there was an actual candidate on the ballot for the Libertarian cause; because I didn't see one. What I saw, was a weak kneed, spineless, feckless, ilmannered boobie, who had the charisma of a wet paper bag.

A worthy individual of our attention, let alone our support, could have acquired 20%-30% of the vote, and captured 5-6 states, but, it's all speculation now. The race was lost. CATASTROPHICALLY. What a humiliation, what deserved fortune of leadership with eyes crossed with self contentment, putting in place a candidate, that is so unimpressive, he puts grown men to sleep with his manner and delivery.

I see a future for us that is bright. With new leadership, we can venture out from under the shadow of failure, we can find that higher place, that we so deservedly will earn. We have the smartest individuals in any political party! Why shouldn't we lead? Pushing forward a pragmatic vision of our government, being run by qualified individuals, and slashing programs like thick brush in the way of progress.

Our vision of America is one full of glory! With us strengthening the individual, believing in them the potential of achieving anything, to inventing the greatest designs, making the grandest biological discoveries, creating new forms of spacial flight, to venture out into the stars, for us to find that grand destiny, that we can have and must fulfill in these years to come.

Much like US politics, most people agree that the LP needs to change, few of us agree on what exactly that change should be. Some think they should become more inclusive and some think they need to be more ideologically pure.

Personally, I think they ought to concentrate on local offices rather than the presidency.

Of all the elections for the Libertarian agenda to win big, it would have been 2016. The electorate was greatly disenfranchised. The choices were as extreme as they come.

On the one hand, the Democrats had the most openly corrupt candidate in American history. On the other, a reality TV host that is on recorded television body slamming Vince McMahon.

Both individuals also had terribly competitive primaries, making them as vulnerable as one could be. The Democrat arguably had it worse, which plays into my next point.

With no defender of real Liberalism, why did the Libertarian party not get more of the vote? One has to inspect this closer. The Republican was not a Republican in usual terms, and the electorate usually attributes the title "conservative" to individuals that mimic faux-Libertarian positions on things; some would make the case that Rand Paul is a Libertarian-Republican, although not completely in that sense.

With that in play, some Republicans would have considered voting Libertarian for that reason. Democrats would have strongly considered voting our way, with the Democrat having some hardcore stances on foreign war, resembling more of a Republican.

The voters were greatly disenchanted, and only, if only, there was an actual candidate on the ballot for the Libertarian cause; because I didn't see one. What I saw, was a weak kneed, spineless, feckless, ilmannered boobie, who had the charisma of a wet paper bag.

A worthy individual of our attention, let alone our support, could have acquired 20%-30% of the vote, and captured 5-6 states, but, it's all speculation now. The race was lost. CATASTROPHICALLY. What a humiliation, what deserved fortune of leadership with eyes crossed with self contentment, putting in place a candidate, that is so unimpressive, he puts grown men to sleep with his manner and delivery.

I see a future for us that is bright. With new leadership, we can venture out from under the shadow of failure, we can find that higher place, that we so deservedly will earn. We have the smartest individuals in any political party! Why shouldn't we lead? Pushing forward a pragmatic vision of our government, being run by qualified individuals, and slashing programs like thick brush in the way of progress.

Our vision of America is one full of glory! With us strengthening the individual, believing in them the potential of achieving anything, to inventing the greatest designs, making the grandest biological discoveries, creating new forms of spacial flight, to venture out into the stars, for us to find that grand destiny, that we can have and must fulfill in these years to come.

Forever Liberty!

Excellent! You speak with an attitude that makes me think you should be the new leader of our party. You speak 'all inclusive' and aren't trying to build the party from what's left over from the Republicans who are fed up with their party. You want to include the unhappy D's too.

That's something that even antiwar.com has never been able to do and they're probably the most active libertarian voice on the media there is today.

But alas, we eventually have to get into the details of which you speak.

Quote:

, and slashing programs like thick brush in the way of progress.

I've been literally begging our libertarians to talk about doing that. They won't.

Now is the time to talk about the specifc regulations that need to be slashed. It can't be put off any longer.

Can we do that and still stay all inclusive as you're being?

The answer we get to that question will tell us if libertarianism has a future. No answers again will spell doom and that may indicate to me that it's time to move on.

With no defender of real Liberalism, why did the Libertarian party not get more of the vote?

...if only, there was an actual candidate on the ballot for the Libertarian cause; because I didn't see one. What I saw, was a weak kneed, spineless, feckless, ilmannered boobie, who had the charisma of a wet paper bag.

Right!! What a boob we had as the LP candidate. Hopefully in 2020, the LNC will offer someone who doesn't act like this:

To compete the LP would need millions to run ads. Hundreds of millions.

I can only suggest that building the party to some degree will start to bring in new funds for advertising.

And then, when an agenda becomes popular to the people, through the effectiveness of even one ad that promotes the aspirations of the majority of the people, the movement quickly becomes contageous and than starts to promote itself.

This leave us all to speculate on what libertarian principle can be put to the people in an ad that would start the ball rolling.

I think that Americans aren't interested in the NAP, regardless of how we could interpret it for them. The pro-war faction is just too large.

I think that smaller government could do the trick but it has to be defined to actually mean something the public can relate to. This is just exactly what I'm asking libertarians to start doing.

But alas, I get spammed by a couple of members who say I want to introduce socialism!!

Excellent! You speak with an attitude that makes me think you should be the new leader of our party. You speak 'all inclusive' and aren't trying to build the party from what's left over from the Republicans who are fed up with their party. You want to include the unhappy D's too.

That's something that even antiwar.com has never been able to do and they're probably the most active libertarian voice on the media there is today.

But alas, we eventually have to get into the details of which you speak.

I've been literally begging our libertarians to talk about doing that. They won't.

Now is the time to talk about the specifc regulations that need to be slashed. It can't be put off any longer.

Can we do that and still stay all inclusive as you're being?

The answer we get to that question will tell us if libertarianism has a future. No answers again will spell doom and that may indicate to me that it's time to move on.

Indeed you can. There is admitted waste in many of the programs. Investments into university projects, intitlements that have become bloated and ineffective. If one eliminates only but essential spending Bill's from Congress through congressional saturation of New Libertarians that would help GREATLY.

But the largest elephant in the room is Social Security. Eliminating it from new individuals getting caught up in the rolls would fix the problem long term. It isn't a quick solution.

We need massive growth for us to climb out of our debt. We need economic growth that this country hasn't seen for a VERY long time. I'm confident we are capable of making such strides, we can achieve it.

Much like US politics, most people agree that the LP needs to change, few of us agree on what exactly that change should be. Some think they should become more inclusive and some think they need to be more ideologically pure.

Personally, I think they ought to concentrate on local offices rather than the presidency.

I agree with this entirely! If we got a president in without ANY in Congress to back him up, he would be isolated, and would be a weak legislative leader.

We MUST aim for state offices to create a base. Then run federal candidates.